Duh, the number of people actually offended by this was always far smaller than was implied by the media and I'm willing to be that none of those people subscribed to Rolling Stone in the first place. All the "controversy" did was to give Rolling Stone lots of "free" publicity(which they may very well have paid for).

I don't know. Whenever I see the kid, I can't help but think of how the gov't. went all overboard with a small army of Assault Thugs, and failed to apprehend him. Instead, they decided to conduct door-to-door body-searches of people who were obviously NOT him. (Hey! If you're looking for a terrorist in my pants, he's around front!) Meanwhile, a single unarmed local managed to find him while on a smoke break.

Oh, and how a certain liberal-leaning friend of mine still can't believe he did it, because of how cute he is.

as a subscriber, I waited for this issue to arrive -the cover isn't particularly flattering. he is a fairly good-looking young man (no more than any young person) but the cover included the text:

THE BOMBER"how a popular, promising student was failed by his family, fell into radical islam and became a monster"

how anyone, familiar with the Boston bombing, could find this flattering confuses me. in the current era of committing political/personal/professional suicide by media over-exposure, the idea that "bad press is better than no press" is LONG over. The article itself was well-written and did what I expected - looked into how this person may have become radicalized. A process we might want insight into?

i'm also pleased to think that so many freaking out about this might have, yes, purchased this issue and perhaps have seen the attendant coverage on "The Arctic Ice Melt" - but, I doubt that happened.

They have every right to run his picture.However, having a right and deciding to USE a right are two different things.It is counterproductive to the problem of domestic terrorism to show that, if you set off a bomb you could be shown in a flattering way on the cover of a major magazine.

Not exactly the job of their magazine. It's for entertainment. The story is interesting. I'd like to read it but then I'd actually have to buy a copy of Rolling Stone. I'll wait for someone at work to buy it.

doubled99:Not exactly the job of their magazine. It's for entertainment. The story is interesting. I'd like to read it but then I'd actually have to buy a copy of Rolling Stone. I'll wait for someone at work to buy it.

Voiceofreason01:Duh, the number of people actually offended by this was always far smaller than was implied by the media and I'm willing to be that none of those people subscribed to Rolling Stone in the first place. All the "controversy" did was to give Rolling Stone lots of "free" publicity(which they may very well have paid for).

Yup. Bunch of hyped-up crap against a magazine that routinely runs excellent hard-news items on topics the ruling-class would rather see ignored.

You mean the flag waving, bible thumping, muzzie hating, teabagging, chicken pickin' listenin' pickle bums who were whinging about it WEREN'T actually regular readers of a notoriously left leaning music mag?

Shocking!!

It seriously is funny when these derp hounds act like they matter outside of their little bubble of fear and hate.

abfalter: It is counterproductive to the problem of domestic terrorism to show that, if you set off a bomb you could be shown in a flattering way on the cover of a major magazine.

It is depressing to think that the attempt to interest and enlighten the public via a major magazine cover devoted to a domestic terrorist (ie get them to READ THE ARTICLE) will not work for so many because all they will discuss is the photo.

Then again? The advertising industry lives and flourishes with this practice.

HAMMERTOE:I don't know. Whenever I see the kid, I can't help but think of how the gov't. went all overboard with a small army of Assault Thugs, and failed to apprehend him. Instead, they decided to conduct door-to-door body-searches of people who were obviously NOT him. (Hey! If you're looking for a terrorist in my pants, he's around front!) Meanwhile, a single unarmed local managed to find him while on a smoke break.

Oh, and how a certain liberal-leaning friend of mine still can't believe he did it, because of how cute he is.

There are so many things wrong with this. First off, whatever you think of the lockdown, they did apprehend one of the bombers. The other died after being run over by his brother.

Secondly, who was doing door-to-door body searches? I think you got your TSA fearmongering mixed up with your brownshirts fearmongering

Thirdly, I keep hearing about all these women fawning over him and yet I've never actually seen anyone saying it, so show me a direct quote of someone fawning over them other than "yeah, he'd be cute if he wasn't a terrorist" and maybe I'll believe you

It was a frickin' selfie. If they had the photo of his brother in a boa taking pictures of himself in the street would that have been glamorous too? They're obviously narcissists, an interesting relevant feature, and the photo shows that. Annie Leibowitz wan't having Johar blowing kisses at the camera!

The guy is young (and looks even younger) and reasonably attractive. He's going to look good in a photo. It's not like Rolling Stone had a photo shoot and dressed him up all GQ style and put that on the cover. The bombing was news, the bombers are news, and a magazine put him on the cover. I don't see how this is offensive at all, especially when they refer to him as a monster on the cover.

somedude210:HAMMERTOE: I don't know. Whenever I see the kid, I can't help but think of how the gov't. went all overboard with a small army of Assault Thugs, and failed to apprehend him. Instead, they decided to conduct door-to-door body-searches of people who were obviously NOT him. (Hey! If you're looking for a terrorist in my pants, he's around front!) Meanwhile, a single unarmed local managed to find him while on a smoke break.

Oh, and how a certain liberal-leaning friend of mine still can't believe he did it, because of how cute he is.

There are so many things wrong with this. First off, whatever you think of the lockdown, they did apprehend one of the bombers. The other died after being run over by his brother.

Secondly, who was doing door-to-door body searches? I think you got your TSA fearmongering mixed up with your brownshirts fearmongering

Thirdly, I keep hearing about all these women fawning over him and yet I've never actually seen anyone saying it, so show me a direct quote of someone fawning over them other than "yeah, he'd be cute if he wasn't a terrorist" and maybe I'll believe you

until then, you are nothing but a troll, an idiot and a liar

It's depressingly easy to find people on twitter who think he is both attractive and innocent

People who usually broadcast that they are boycotting something would not have bought it in the first place. They just want everyone to know they are "taking a stand" without actually having to DO anything.

Like I said in the other thread, of course the issue will generate curiosity, but newsstand sales are less than 5% of their business. The boycott will come down to how it affects subscriptions, which this article doesn't even consider. If 10% of subscribers refuse to renew because of this, they will lose out tremendously.

somedude210:There are so many things wrong with this. First off, whatever you think of the lockdown, they did apprehend one of the bombers. The other died after being run over by his brother.

Forgive me. I misspoke. Certainly, they did 'apprehend" him. After they failed to FIND him. But they surely made up for that by having a "shootout" with him, (despite his being unarmed.) The only casualty that evening was a defenseless, innocent boat.

Thirdly, I keep hearing about all these women fawning over him and yet I've never actually seen anyone saying it, so show me a direct quote of someone fawning over them other than "yeah, he'd be cute if he wasn't a terrorist" and maybe I'll believe you.

until then, you are nothing but a troll, an idiot and a liar

I have exactly ZERO reason to lie. Like I said, it was a personal friend of mine, and her exact words were, "I just can't believe it! He's too cute to be a terrorist!"

HAMMERTOE:nburghmatt: i don't see how it's flattering. he looks like a teenager because he is/was one. would you have them photoshop an evil mustache and some devil horns on him?

No, but he's obviously been "Trayvonned". They published the most cutesy, flattering picture they could find of him. Frankly, I'm surprised they didn't go with the 14 y/o pic.

Some people think the bomber is cute. Others think he's an ugly terrorist monster. These sorts of assessments are subjective by nature. It's telling that you refer to the cover as "most cutesy, flattering."As far as your lamenting tooold:(.jpg, I'm not going anywhere near that but you might want to have a seat right over there.

All of this manufactured poutrage was by morons who 1) literally judge things by their cover (They flat out called him a monster on the cover, but they're more concerned that it's "glamorizing" him because he didn't get the OJ on Time treatment, 2) are upset that a terrorist could look like a normal white kid who wouldn't be out of place wherever they live instead of Osama bin Laden, (in short. he looks like them and that makes them profoundly uncomfortable) and 3) think that a picture can somehow encourage other people to commit acts of evil.

If a f*cking picture is enough to get people pissed off and afraid, then really they should just never leave the house because they're incapable of dealing with the real world

I wonder what it's like inside the head of a "Conservative," being terrified of imaginary things all day long, offended by phantoms, unable to leave the house without being armed, spending all your money on monstrously overpriced "survival food" and GOLD! And railing against Rolling Stone.

/Pictures of the war criminal Allan West on conservative magazine covers is just fine though. Same with convicted traitor Oliver North.